Violence and Society Final Exam Question

Violence and Society Final Exam Question

        In regards to the riots we have discussed in class, there seems to be some common themes that are shared. As with the Watts riots the cause or explanation for the riot seemed obvious. The Arrest of Marquette Fry and the extent of violence that the police used against him in his arrest helped to spark a riot. The social conditions that existed at the time proved to be a catalyst for the violence. The memories of segregation and of maltreatment by police still fresh in the minds of most would be rioters. This was their reason for rioting, and it only took one event to ignite the spark.

The Watts riots fits the definition of a riot almost perfectly. As it was characterized by unruly crowds that engaged in violence and mayhem. That riot began with a legitimate grievance (racial discrimination/unfair treatment/lack of opportunity) but the violence escalated until it appeared excessive and "senseless".

In contrast, the London riots seem more complex due to their size, scope, and the diversity of the people involved. But the in-depth research done by the Guardian and the London School of Economics, provides a good explanation for why the violence happened and some of the main causes.  The initial disturbances in Tottenham follow the trend of a defined riot. It started with a legitimate grievance over the shooting death of Mark Duggan by police (Guardian-LSE, 2012). When the protesters did not get resolution to their demands violence ensued. This violence escalated and developed into something excessive and appearing "senseless". This is an easy event to classify, but the riots that erupted in areas like Manchester, Salford, Birmingham, Liverpool, etc. had less obvious drivers.

True, of the many people that were interviewed for research, many stated Mark Duggan as motivation, but other motivations were also clear. Many looters conceded that their involvement in looting was down to opportunism, in the midst of suspended laws. Analysis shows that the majority of looters come from the most deprived 20% of areas in the UK (Guardian-LSE, 2012). I argue that the motivation is similar to the Watts riots in that looting was a means to get things that were denied to them by society. This is illustrated by the type of businesses that were looted by rioters. 61% were retail premises, with stores that carry electronics (phones, T.V.'s, CD's, DVD's) and stores that carry designer label clothes and shoes being prime targets. Supermarkets and related stores only make up 8% of the total, as the rioters were not after the necessities (Guardian-LSE, 2012).

Further a large proportion of people involved in the riots were unemployed or students. Concerns were expressed in regards to people's ability to find jobs and the opportunities available to young people. What could have been regarded as "mindless" or "copycat" riots were no doubt an expression of the disenfranchisement of youth with society. Indeed four-fifths of the people interviewed were under the age of 24, who emitted a "profound sense of alienation" from society and "were a group who felt dislocated from the opportunities they saw as available to others" (Guardian-LSE, 2012). This further reinforces the poverty dimension as the reason for rioting.